Key Takeaway
Court rules disqualification of insurer's law firm was unnecessary in EUO no-show case where summary judgment was granted, making trial moot under NY no-fault law.
This article is part of our ongoing euo issues coverage, with 197 published articles analyzing euo issues issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Lotus Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 51315(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)
“In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). The motion was supported by, among other things, an affirmation from a partner in the law firm representing defendant, attesting to plaintiff’s failure to appear. Plaintiff cross-moved to, among other things, disqualify the law firm representing defendant, pursuant to rule 3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0), on the ground that a member of the firm was a necessary witness in this case. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court entered August 3, 2012 granting defendant’s motion and denying plaintiff’s cross motion. A judgment was subsequently entered dismissing the complaint, from which the appeal is deemed to have been taken (see CPLR 5501 ).
…
“In light of the foregoing, plaintiff’s request that defendant’s law firm be disqualified based on the attorney/witness rule is “moot since, summary judgment having been granted, there will be no trial of this matter” (Quiros v Mount St. Michael Academy, 303 AD2d 185, 186 ; see also Lombino v Town Bd. of Town of Rye, 206 AD2d 462 ). In any event, plaintiff failed to establish that disqualification of defendant’s law firm was warranted (see S & S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v 777 S. H. Corp., 69 NY2d 437 ; see also e.g. Magnus v Sklover, 95 AD3d 837 ; Matter of Advent Assoc., LLC v Vogt Family Inv. Partners, L.P., 56 AD3d 1023 ; Hudson Val. Mar., Inc. v Town of Cortlandt, 54 AD3d 999 ; Daniel Gale Assoc., Inc. v George, 8 AD3d 608 ;Broadwhite Assoc. v Truong, 237 AD2d 162 ; Matter of Cowen & Co. v Tecnoconsult Holdings, 234 AD2d 86 ; Talvy v American Red Cross in Greater NY, 205 AD2d 143 , affd 87 NY2d 826 ; Kaplan v Maytex Mills, 187 AD2d 565 ).”
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
Related Articles
- How to Challenge EUO No-Show Denials: When Improper Notice Can Reverse Insurance Denials in New York
- Personal Knowledge Requirements for EUO Non-Appearances: NY Legal Standards
- Understanding EUO Denial: When Insurance Companies Can Substantiate Coverage Denials
- EUO No-Show Consequences: What Happens When You Skip Your Examination Under Oath in New York
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 decision, New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct governing attorney disqualification under the attorney-witness rule (22 NYCRR 1200.0) may have been amended, and procedural requirements for EUO no-show cases in no-fault insurance litigation may have evolved. Practitioners should verify current provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct and any updates to no-fault procedural requirements when handling similar disqualification motions.
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
Keep Reading
More EUO issues Analysis
EUO No-Show: Attorney Affirmation Sufficient Despite Time Lapse Between No-Shows and Execution
Appellate Term reverses Civil Court, holding that an attorney's affirmation attesting to plaintiff's failure to appear at EUOs was sufficient despite.
Feb 25, 2026
EUO no-show – correct statement of law
Court ruling clarifies that insurers cannot enforce EUO requests sent more than 30 days after receiving claims, making late requests nullities under New York no-fault law.
May 22, 2021
Timeliness of the EUO relative to the billings (again)
Recent New York appellate cases reinforce that insurance companies must schedule EUOs within 30 days of receiving no-fault claims to preserve their right to examination.
Dec 26, 2017
EUO no show defense substantiated
Court ruling confirms insurers don't need objective reasons for EUO demands when proving prima facie case for no-show defense in New York no-fault claims.
Nov 28, 2015
No-show proved through certified transcripts
Learn how certified EUO transcripts can prove no-shows in New York no-fault insurance cases, as demonstrated in Active Chiropractic v Praetorian Insurance.
Apr 19, 2014
EUO No-Show Defense: Summary Judgment Granted for Failure to Attend in New York
NY court grants summary judgment when claimant fails to attend EUO after proper mailing of scheduling letters.
Aug 19, 2010Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a euo issues matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
